Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill - Standing Committee B

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Clause 1 - Offences to which the Act applies

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 111, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out
‘(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)’. —[Mr. Laurence Robertson.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Nicholas Winterton: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing new clause 2—Certificates for offences committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland—
‘(1)Where an application is made to the certification commissioner for a certificate of eligibility, the commissioner must issue a certificate if—
(a)the applicant is accused of an offence committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland, and
(b)it appears to the commissioner, on the information available to him, that the applicant meets the conditions set out in section 3 above.
(2)The commissioner may preserve the anonymity of any person who makes an application under this section, if he sees fit.’.

David Hanson: Our discussion this morning centred on the scope of clause 1 and questions about the potential inclusion of members of the security forces if they have committed relevant offences in relation to new clause 2 and clause 1. To clarify the position, I can only repeat what I said this morning, but I hope that I can reassure hon. Members. What I said about the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) remains the case. During this morning’s sitting we debated the link between clause 1 and the list of offences contained in schedule 9 to the Terrorism Act 2000, commonly referred to as scheduled offences. In drafting the Bill, the Government took care to ensure that the definition in clause 1(1)(a) was deliberately and carefully formulated to cover the same offences as those contained in the defined offences in schedule 9 to the 2000 Act.
Those in the Committee who are familiar with that Act—the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) was present during the deliberations on it—will know the rationale behind the schedule. Schedule 9 lists offences committed where there is a possibility, to use the old parlance, that they were undertaken in connection with the emergency in Northern Ireland. For ease of reference, I have managed to secure a copy of the 2000 Act. The substantive offences in schedule 9 include murder, manslaughter, riot, kidnapping, false imprisonment and a range of other offences.
Procedurally, as hon. Members will know, when an individual is charged with a scheduled offence under the Act, the Attorney-General considers whether the offence has been committed in connection with terrorism in Northern Ireland. In doing so, the Attorney-General decides whether the individual should be tried by a jury for an ordinary offence of murder, if I can call it that, such as one committed through domestic violence, or whether the offence of murder is connected to terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland in the way that I described before lunch. If the latter, the case is referred to the Diplock court and considered as a scheduled offence under the Terrorism Act. The purpose of clause 1(1)(a) is to replicate the effect of that legislation.
The Attorney-General considers whether the offence was committed in connection with the emergency in Northern Ireland and clause 1 is worded in exactly the same way to capture the same offences as those that would be tried as scheduled offences. We do not use the terms “scheduled” or “non-scheduled” offences, because it has proved difficult to draft in those terms, but I assure hon. Members that the effect of clause 1(1)(a) is to ensure that schedule 9 will operate, with the certification commissioner having the same types of powers as the Attorney-General to determine whether offences are scheduled offences. Under later clauses, the certification commissioner will consider whether the offence is one to which the Bill applies—that is, whether it has been committed in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland.
The words in clause 1(1)(a) that are in brackets are intended to express as clearly as possible that offences committed in connection with terrorism will include, for the purposes of the Bill, offences committed in the course of combating terrorism. That takes me on to new clause 2 and the second part of the impact of the legislation.

Jeremy Hunt: I appreciate the assurances that the Minister is trying to give, but can he explain why, despite his saying that this is all covered by the Terrorism Act 2000, there is no reference to that Act in clause 1(1)(a)? There is a reference to it in clause 1(1)(b). If everything is as the Minister’s assures us—I am sure that it is—why can he not accept the amendment?

David Hanson: I cannot accept it because the amendment will alter the terms of the clause as it has been proposed. I have tried to assure hon. Members of the Committee—this is quotable for future reference in case law, as hon. Members know—that the provisions of clause 1(1)(a) are linked to the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and schedule 9 to that Act. I have not been able to draft the clause specifically to that effect due to technical difficulties—I am happy to go though the range of difficulties in writing, if that is what hon. Members want—but the effect is the same. I hope that any future legislator or interpreter of the legislation will be reassured by my words, as the Minister taking the Bill through Committee, that thed¤effect of clause 1 is exactly the same as schedule 9 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
The measure also relates to the sensitive issue raised in new clause 2 by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and others, and to the Government’s intention in proposing the clause as currently defined. Coming to terms with that issue and making judgments about it has been difficult for the ministerial team, but we have decided that the proposals relating to so-called on-the runs that were announced and discussed in 2003, then published by the British and the Irish Governments, cannot go through this House—and not for the simple reason that Opposition Members have suggested, that the proposals are sweeteners. We thought very deeply and made hard decisions on how to take the matter forward. Our decision is that it is incompatible with common decency to give someone who committed a serious terrorist offence prior to 10 April 1998 the facility to apply for a certificate, to go before the court in general terms, to have a conviction and then to be released on licence, while at the same time individuals who have served their country may—for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr.d¤Wallace), amongst others—be subject to charges of murder or of other serious offences committed prior to 10 April 1998 and to being tried an ordinary court and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment if convicted.
The key point for us is not necessarily who has committed the offence, although that is important in general terms. It is that an individual has been charged with having committed,
“an offence ... in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”,
prior to 10 April 1998. If a soldier and a terrorist are both charged with murder, although their cases are not broadly compatible, the offence with which they are charged is ultimately the same. In all fairness and justice, the Government had to include members of the security forces in the Bill, not as members of the security forces but as individuals charged with committing an offence relevant to clause 1, either through collusion or directly. If we had not done that, individuals involved in the security forces would face trial, conviction and imprisonment for an offence while a terrorist committing an horrendous act would face trial and conviction, but be released on licence. That is the reason we have undertaken that format. I will certainly give way.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister enlighten us as to when the Government team came to that difficult decision? Is it the case that the former constituted Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission made a recommendation to the Government that there would be human rights implications if that were not done?

David Hanson: I am in a difficult position, Sird¤Nicholas, in the sense that although I am a Government Minister, I was not in this position prior to the general election. Since May 2005, the Secretary of State and I, as the Ministers responsible for this legislation—the bulk of which we inherited from previous Ministers—have considered how to manage it and deal with its impact. We had to decide what to do in respect of service personnel if it were decided that terrorist suspects should potentially have a route through a scheme that gives them a conviction and releases them on licence. We had to establish in our own mind what would happen to individuals who had served in the armed forces and were charged with having committed an offence prior to 10 April 1998, whether that offence was one of collusion or of the type described by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, or whether it emerged from one of the ongoing inquiries.
We had to take a decision to apply the scheme fairly and honestly to all. Not all the individuals in question have faced similar circumstances—we cannot and will not morally equate terrorism with the activities of the security forces—but the offences for which any conviction is pending are similar. Had not done as we have, we could have faced a situation in which a soldier who committed an offence could be sentenced to imprisonment and there would be no licence agreement, but a terrorist who committed and was charged with the same offence could be released on licence under the scheme.
I recognise that there is total opposition to the idea of a terrorist receiving the type of sentencing system that has been described by Opposition Members and by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others in his party. However, I hope that they recognise that if the Government proceed with that aspect of the legislation, they will also be giving fair treatment to individuals who face charges at the same level.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister has sought to explain the relationship between clause 1(1)(a) and the Terrorism Act 2000 and he has indicated that the term
“in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”
reflects the definition in the 2000 Act. I, too, took the liberty of getting a copy of the Act. Perhaps the Minister will explain where terrorism is defined in schedule 9 or section 1 of the 2000 Act, or where the terms that he has said are lifted from that Act and put in clause 1(1)(a) are to be found. I have searched through the Act and not found them. It would be helpful if he pointed me to the line where that term is used.

David Hanson: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. For the record, because that is important, our assessment is that the meaning of clause 1(1)(a) is the same as that under the 2000 Act. That is also the legal assessment that we have come to in drawing up clause 1(1)(a). We can kick this subject around for a long time and I am happy to continue, but I am trying to reassure the Committee that the Government’s assessment, having discussed the matter with parliamentary draftsmen and the legal team, is that schedule 9 to the 2000 Act relates to clause 1(1)(a), which is why the clause is framed as it is.

Sammy Wilson: With due respect, we are now moving from the definition as taken from the Act to the Minister’s assessment of the definition. I do not think that, given the seriousness of the matter, an assessment is good enough. Either the clause reflects the definition of terrorism that is contained in the 2000 Act or it does not. It is not good enough on a matter of such importance to say, “It is our assessment.” On which part of schedule 9 or section 1 is that assessment based?

David Hanson: We have kicked this subject around for the best part of 45 minutes. I can only say again that the criteria that we have set out are similar to those used by the Attorney-General to ensure the operation of the schedule to the 2000 Act. That is why included them in the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: It is appropriate that we spend time on the subject because it is so important. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is a good use of our time.
The Minister seems to be saying that the definition in clause 1(1)(a) means exactly the same as the definition contained in the Terrorism Act 2000. Will he confirm that the two definitions are exactly the same, in which case why is he not using exactly the same language; or does he accept that they are not the same, in which case will he explain the variation between the two definitions?

David Hanson: I am in danger of repeating myself. In drafting the Bill, the Government and the parliamentary draftsman ensured that the definition in clause 1(1)(a) was deliberately and carefully worded to cover the same offences are covered in the schedule of offences in the 2000 Act. I hope that anyone reading the record of this Committee in future will accept that subsection (1)(a) has been deliberately and carefully worded to ensure that it covers the same offences as defined in the schedule of offences in the 2000 Act. That is our assessment. The legal reason why we drafted the Bill as we have is that we wanted to ensure that the Bill met the obligations of assessment that I want to happen. We wanted to ensure that we covered both the affairs of Northern Ireland and terrorism and—I know that the hon. Member for Foyle disagrees with this—to ensure that individuals such as military personnel who served prior to 10 April 1998 would be able to avail themselves of the same scheme.

Jeremy Hunt: May I confirm, on the basis of what you are saying about new clause 2—

Nicholas Winterton: I am not saying anything.

Jeremy Hunt: I apologise, Sir Nicholas. The Minister is saying that the scheme will apply not only to those accused of offences committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism, as set out in new clause 2, but to members of the security forces involved in collusion with paramilitary and terrorist organisations. In other words, it goes wider than the scope of new clause 2. Will the Minister confirm that? Will he also say whether he agrees with the subsection (2) of new clause 2, which deals with the important issue of anonymity?

David Hanson: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have all done it in our time, so he should not worry about it. It is an easy mistake to make.
On new clause 2 and my interpretation of the Bill, we believe that individuals involved in the security forces prior to 10 April 1998 who are charged with offences will be able to avail themselves of the Bill’s provisions. That would potentially include individuals who were involved in collusion and those who were involved in the type of incident mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. The Bill is designed to deal with the offence rather than the individual. It is framed to cover the affairs of Northern Ireland and associated terrorism so that individuals can avail themselves of the scheme.
I return to new clause 2 and the reason why the Government framed the proposals as we did. The new ministerial team reflected on the matter and when we were ready to legislate we decided that it would be unfair to individuals who served in the military prior to 10 April 1998 who were charged with serious offences if they could not avail themselves of the scheme, when terrorists who were charged with serious offences would be able to do so.

Peter Robinson: The Minister says that the definition of terrorism used in the Bill is the definition contained in the Terrorism Act 2000. I cannot immediately find a definition for terrorism in that Act, but section 40 of that Act defines a terrorist as a person who has committed an offence
“under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18”
and several others, and under section 17 a person commits an offence if
“he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another”,
or engages in a range of other activities relating to money laundering. In effect, any act that raises funds for terrorist purposes is an offence. In the Bill, however, terrorism is further defined and qualified by the additional phrase:
“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.
While bank robberies and other matters will be regarded as acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, can we assume that such acts are covered by the Bill if they are committed
“(whether ... for terrorist purposes or not)”?

David Hanson: The phrase
“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”
is used so that the armed forces and security forces are covered. We believe that schedule 9 to the 2000 Act is covered by clause 1(1)(a) of the Bill. There is disagreement about interpretation, but I have been as clear as I can about that. Just as under that Act the Attorney-General determines whether or not an offence was committed for terrorist purposes, so under the Bill the certification commissioner will consider whether an offence was committed for terrorist purposes.

Ben Wallace: My understanding of the Minister’s answer is that the reason why the Government have left the door open wider than for terrorist offences is that should members of the Special Air Service who took part in Loughall be charged with unlawful killing, which would not obviously be a terrorist offence, they, too, could use that breadth to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. Is that correct?

David Hanson: Without commenting on specific cases because that that would be difficult, the offence to which the hon. Gentleman referred is the type of offence to which the certification commissioner could consider applying the scheme, because of the way in which the Bill is phrased. Going back to basics, we have included the phrase and accepted the scheme, while accepting the opposition of hon. Members to the principle of the scheme. If we apply the scheme to terrorists, we as a Government must apply it to all those who are connected with Northern Ireland offences and are being charged for them.

Mark Durkan: Earlier the Minister described the difficult decisions that had to be made by the current ministerial team. In response to a previous intervention, he said that the team decided that the provisions of the Bill would extend far and wide and include members of the security forces. Both in Committee and on Second Reading, he and the Secretary of State warned hon. Members that, if we did not pass the Bill, we would be jeopardising progress and undermining a previous agreement on which progress depended. Is the Minister confident that no understanding that the Government have with Sinn Fein and, through Sinn Fein, with anyone else, will be compromised or jeopardised by the ministerial team’s decision to extend the scope of the Bill? What assurance can he give us about that?

David Hanson: It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), who has absented himself from our debate, has criticised that aspect of the Bill in a public forum. The Government published proposals to ensure that the outstanding matter of on-the-runs and the measures in respect of them were dealt with at an appropriate moment in the political peace process. We believe that that moment is now.
The inclusion of the security forces—enabling them to avail themselves of the scheme in the event of their being charged with offences—is controversial. The Members for Belfast, West, for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and for West Tyrone, and others in Sinn Fein do not accept it and do not welcome it. However, the Government have had to make a judgment—we had to decide whether the completion of the on-the-runs agreement in legislative form was an important part of the process. At the same time, we have had to take a decision, which has not proved popular in all quarters, to the effect that members of the security forces can avail themselves of the scheme. Such decisions and judgments are difficult to make. We are not drawing a moral equivalence between the two groups, but to have acted differently would have been highly unfair to individuals who have served their country in the security forces and who have committed acts for which they might be charged, leading to serious consequences if convicted. They might have to serve sentences while those in terrorist organisations are released on licence.

Lady Hermon: The Minister has concentrated on explaining that the original proposal, which extended only to OTRs—on-the-run terrorists outside the jurisdiction—has now, after a difficult decision, been extended to the security forces. Will he make it clear to everybody in the Room that the wording of the Bill is much wider than that? It extends beyond the security forces and OTRs to include those who might hold the title Member of the Legislative Assembly and who might turn out in the cold case review to have committed serious criminal offences. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case, and will he then explain to the Committee why the Government came to its difficult decision in the absence of any representations from any political party in Northern Ireland?

David Hanson: The hon. Lady is aware that the Bill’s scope extends beyond those who are on the run and members of the security forces. She is aware of that cold case review cases can be covered by this legislation. The Secretary of State explained that on Second Reading and it is transparently clear that that is the case.
We are talking about difficult judgments, and the Government judged that the Good Friday agreement was the beginning of an act of completion to move the political peace process forward. We have taken the judgment, difficult though it was, that offences that occurred prior to the Good Friday agreement are now at a distance in time and that we have to move on. Let me remind hon. Members of all parties that if an individual was charged and convicted of an offence prior to the Good Friday agreement and served a sentence, he would have qualified for the early release scheme. I know that some Opposition Members opposed that.
To answer the question about on-the-runs, security forces and others, we have taken a difficult decision as one of our building blocks for securing a future for Northern Ireland. There are honest and passionate disagreements about that, but that is why we have done it.

Peter Robinson: Going back two interventions, I am not sure that the hon. Member for Foyle received an answer to his question. He was looking for a response to his recognition that the Government decided to introduce the legislation because they felt that it was an essential component of the peace process and that it was necessary to take the IRA along with them. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether, whatever their synthetic protests might be about this provision, it was so bad that Sinn Fein was likely to throw its toys out of the pram, or whether it was prepared to thole it, to use an Ulster expression that I am sure the Minister has come to terms with by now.
I have no doubt about the Minister’s intention; that was always my understanding of what the Government intended by the words in brackets. However, unintended consequences flow from those words, as we have clearly seen. All that the Minister has offered us has been to say, “When a case emerges in which that is an issue, my words in this Committee will be considered by the courts and I am sure that they will be overwhelmingly impressed by what I have to say.” The truth is, of course, that I have gone down that road in the past. I have gone all the way to the House of Lords with a case in which the words of one of the Minister’s colleagues, Lord Dubs, made the Government’s intention very clear, but the words in the legislation gave the court another impression. The House of Lords voted 3:2 against. The words that the Minister utters in the Committee will, I am sure, impress us all, but they may not impress the courts in the final analysis.

David Hanson: I fear that we are going over ground that we have already covered. I am happy to do that, but I can only reiterate what I have said; I can add nothing more.

Mark Durkan: I know that the Minister says that some ground has already been covered, but I want to return him to some ground that he did not cover, in response to my previous intervention. If all progress depends on the passage of the Bill, and it all relates to a deal, or an understanding, that was reached with Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein alone—because no matter how often the Minister or the Secretary of State speak of agreement with parties, it involved only one party—why is the Minister so confident that that progress will not be jeopardised by the inclusion in the Bill of aspects that Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams now say are unacceptable? If Sinn Fein shows that it knows the meaning of the word “unacceptable”, and says that it will not have the Bill on these terms, and asks the Government to withdraw—if it says “Let’s call the whole thing off”—what will the Government do?

David Hanson: The Government have taken a decision to present the Bill for the reasons that I explained. We believe that post-Good Friday agreement there are acts of completion that need to be undertaken, and the Bill is one of them. It is a building block in the process. I recognise that it remains an anomaly that individuals are on the run, potentially to be charged with serious offences, while individuals who were involved in similar offences before 10 April 1998 have been released under the early release scheme. I recognise that there is an anomaly between bringing forward what the Government announced in 2003, in a joint  statement with the Irish Government on the way forward, as part of the acts of completion, and the potential non-inclusion of members of the security forces, for the reasons that I outlined. To be fair to the hon. Members for Lagan Valley, for Belfast, East and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), they recognise that however much they dislike the Bill, if it progresses, that aspect must be included in it.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry that the Minister sounds slightly exasperated, but I am grateful to him for taking my intervention. He kindly confirmed in response to my last intervention that the Bill goes further and broader than OTRs and the security services. He has repeated the justification for including the OTRs: agreement with Sinn Fein. That is fine. He has also explained to the Committee that there was an anomaly, whether we like it or not—and I personally find it very distasteful that the security forces are included. Will the Minister, however, explain to the Committee the justification for giving an amnesty to those who will be named in the cold case review? Secondly, did Sinn Fein make any representations to the Government about extending the Bill to include that category of criminals—criminals?

David Hanson: First, I have to challenge the hon. Lady. We shall come to those matters later and I do not wish to try your patience, Sir Nicholas, by covering them now. However, I reject the suggestion that there is an amnesty. Although individuals will come before the tribunal, which will be discussed under later clauses, they will, if they are convicted of the crimes that they are charged with, have a criminal record; they will receive a licence and be released on licence. There are strict terms. We are straying now on to matters to be dealt with under later clauses.
The cold case review is being undertaken for two reasons. First, it is important to find out what happened, if we can, in some cases that remain, for the victims and relatives, and to get the matters into court. It is still important to ensure that some individuals are held to account for their actions, by their criminal record and by the procedure under the Bill. I recognise that that arrangement goes wider than the original proposals of 2003, but the Government have taken the view that it should be brought forward because we are trying to advance the political peace process by bringing some conclusion to some of the events that occurred before the Good Friday agreement. There are honest and passionate disagreements on that, but the Government’s motivation is to ensure that we do not in future have people in Northern Ireland being made victims and being killed.

Sammy Wilson: The debate about what is covered under clause 1(1)(a) started when I quoted some horrendous cases, which the Minister said would not be included because they would not be regarded as scheduled offences under the Terrorism Act 2000. I will give the Minister an example and perhaps he will tell me whether he believes it will be covered by the provision.
A group of women take another woman into a hall and beat her to death because it is believed that she is having an affair with the husband of one of them. When they go to court, they claim, under section 11 of the 2000 Act, that they belong to a proscribed organisation. Would that particular crime be covered by clause 1(1)(a)?

Nicholas Winterton: Before the Minister replies, may I just make a suggestion? I like to have a disciplined Committee. I am happy for as many interventions as possible to be put to the Minister because this is an important issue, but if they were a little more succinct and a little briefer we might cover a little more ground.

David Hanson: First and foremost, if the events were undertaken by a proscribed organisation, the individuals would not qualify for the scheme under later clauses in the Bill, which we will discuss in due course. One of the qualifying categories that we have put in place ensures that individuals who are members of proscribed organisations do not qualify for this scheme. I do not wish to try your patience by moving several clauses ahead, Sir Nicholas.
On offences that have occurred, I cannot today—this might provoke further interventions—go through things on a detailed case-by-case basis. What I can say is that exactly the same situation that would apply now under the Terrorism Act 2000, where the Attorney-General takes a view on whether an act was committed in relation to terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland, will apply and such a judgment will be made by the certification commissioner under this legislation in due course.
All sorts of potential individual cases could be raised. The Attorney-General’s powers, in the broad sense, are exercised by the certification commissioner in making the same assessments that the Attorney-General currently makes under schedule 9 to the 2000 Act. If the Attorney-General viewed the particular occurrence that was mentioned as an act of terrorism, it would face the Diplock court procedure. If he viewed it as an act of murder that was not related to terrorism, it would face the normal courts and the normal procedure. It is for the Attorney-General, not for me, to make that judgment.

Sammy Wilson: I quoted that example because that was a scheduled offence; it was treated as a scheduled offence because the people claimed to belong to a proscribed organisation. Will the Minister just confirm something? Let us suppose that someone claims that they committed a horrendous crime such as that, which was not clearly terrorist related. They committed it in the past while members of a proscribed organisation, although they deny that they are any longer members of, or support, that organisation. If we assume what the Minister is saying about clause 1(1)(a), they could, under that provision, get off with the crime and get a licence.

David Hanson: I am in danger of repeating myself. It would ultimately be for the certification commissioner to determine whether such a crime was related to  terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland. A similar determination would be made now under the current legislation by the Attorney-General.
I return to the hon. Gentleman’s point. He mentioned proscribed organisations, but I misheard him; I thought that he said specified organisations. They are dealt with under later clauses in the legislation and would not qualify. A proscribed organisation is different. As he will see later, clause 3(3) will rule out specified organisations from qualifying for the scheme.

Laurence Robertson: I am glad that the Minister made the point about the difference between specified organisations and proscribed organisations. Surely in doing that, however, he has put his finger on the very point that the hon. Member for East Antrim made; if those women belong to the IRA, they will qualify for the scheme.
Mr. Hansonindicated dissent.

Laurence Robertson: I did not say that they would obtain the certificate; I said that they would qualify for the scheme, even though they are members of an illegal organisation and have committed a barbaric act. They would not qualify for the scheme if they belonged to a specified organisation, which is a point to which we can return, as it is particularly relevant when we are trying to define what acts will be covered by the Bill.

David Hanson: I cannot add any more to what I have said about the assessment. There is honest disagreement between the hon. Gentlemen and me about interpretation. I have tried my best to put to the Committee the logic of the Government’s position.
Before I conclude my remarks, I shall touch on the question of anonymity, to which the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) referred.

Lady Hermon: Before he moves on to a completely different point, will the Minister give me a yes or no answer to the question that I asked earlier: did Sinn Fein make any representations to the Government that those identified by the cold case review team would be covered by the Bill?

David Hanson: No.
I return to the point about anonymity, which is an important matter that relates to the points made by the hon. Members for Lagan Valley, for South-West Surrey and for Lancaster and Wyre. I am in danger of jumping ahead, but there will be an opportunity when we debate later clauses to explain in detail that the certification commissioner has the power to withhold information as necessary.
We recognise that anonymity may be required in special cases, which we may define later in our consideration of the Bill. We do not require additional provision to achieve that, and we do not want to make membership of the security forces the basis for that, but it is possible for the certification commissioner, after representations, to deem that a situation requires anonymity. That does not mean that in every case the security forces will be granted anonymity, but they may require it because there are circumstances in which  anonymity would be important. The protection that currently exists in the Crown court will be in place in the special tribunal.
I hope that that answers that point, but rather than test your patience, Sir Nicholas, I say in fairness that we can refer to the matter when we deal with the tribunal and the role of the certification commissioner in later clauses.
I have tried to take as many interventions as I can on the topics that have been raised. If there are disagreements at the end of this debate, we will have to press the matter to a Division. I say to the hon. Members for Lagan Valley and for Belfast, East that I share the intention behind new clause 2, but I believe that it is already incorporated in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will not push it to a Division because I believe, as I have tried to explain, that we have already covered it.
An important technical drafting point to make about new clause 2 is that it would have the impact of extending the inclusion of the security forces by including all offences regardless of 10 April 1998, the Good Friday agreement cut-off date. That would mean that offences committed after 10 April 1998 would be considered on the basis of new clause 2. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Belfast, East.

Peter Robinson: I am not sure that the Minister has addressed the key issue, which is that the purpose of new clause 2 is to extract the security forces from the provision under which the terrorist offences are dealt with, and to have a separate provision for the security forces. It would, at least, draw a distinction between the two, and distance the security forces from the terrorists. Is the Minister prepared to consider that aspect of it?

David Hanson: That is a valid point, as I hoped I had mentioned, but the Government are concerned with offences committed before 10 April 1998. It is the offences that are driving the proposals in the Bill, and it is the offences that are driving the proposals that will face the certification commissioner. If for any reason a member of the security forces is charged with murder, that charge will remain a murder charge comparable to that of a terrorist charged with murder at the same time.
We recognise that there are differences between the security forces and terrorist organisations. We are not in any way, shape or form morally comparing a terrorist organisation that has committed horrendous crimes with the security forces. But individuals in the security forces may be charged with offences that may result in them being convicted of murder or other offences, and we have included those individuals for that reason.

Ben Wallace: I ask the Minister for clarification. We have talked about eligibility for individuals and the width and scope of the offences. If a member of the security  forces were to opt not to apply for certification, but to have their day in court, and they were then found guilty, would they be allowed to opt back into the protecting provisions of the Bill?

David Hanson: My understanding is that the individual will have to make a choice. The purpose of this provision is that individuals choose whether to say, “Yes, I have been charged with an offence, so I will apply to the certification commissioner, and I will go through the process”—as detailed in later clauses in the legislation—“and I will face the possibility of being convicted, being given a criminal record and being released on licence.” They can choose not to facilitate that, but if they do so and are taken to an ordinary court, they face the possibility of serving a period in jail if they are convicted of the crime.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the choice lies with the individual. That is why I hope that Members welcome the provision. If individuals feel that they are innocent, they can choose either to go through the special tribunal or to go through the normal court system, but if they do not apply for certification and choose instead to go through the normal court system, they will have to face thed¤consequences. In designing the scheme, the Government have tried to introduce an opportunity for people to avail themselves of that provision in respect of offences committed prior to 10 April 1998.
I commend the clause as drafted to the Committee, and I hope that the assurances that I have given mean that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and hon. Members from the Democratic Unionist party feel able not to press their amendments.

Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, I promised to call the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.

Lembit Öpik: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I should explain to Members that rather than make repeated interventions on the Minister, I felt it would be better to explain my objections to the clause in a short contribution.
I understand that this is not the Minister’s fault, but it is the Government’s duty to get it right. I do not blame the Minister for not necessarily being as aware of the depth of the history of the legislation as some others are, because that is the way that government is. But it is the duty of the rest of us to highlight some irreconcilable flaws in the clause. That is why I need to put on the record what I see as the key issue.
First, I will make a side point that has already been mentioned but which needs to be highlighted again. The Minister said that assurances had been given to parties, but he could not tell us which. By a process of elimination, we know that it was not the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party, the Ulster Unionist party, or any other party in Northern Ireland except Sinn Fein. Secondly, we now hear that Sinn Fein is not happy with the Bill either. Therefore, there is unity in Northern Ireland in opposition to some points, but the Government seem to be ignoring that.
The Minister should be cautious about trying to force this Bill through, because that unity has not been achieved through political opportunism by the parties in Northern Ireland. It has been achieved because we all feel that at the core of this Bill—in clause 1—there is a fundamental flaw that, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, delivers unintended consequences, the central one of which is effectively a get-out-jail-free card for offences that are absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist environment in Northern Ireland.
It is all down to the definitions. We are clear now that when the Terrorism Act 2000 is cited in clause 1(2), that is a specific reference to offences related to escape. In fact, the offences are those under the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953. It is nothing to do with the main definition of terrorism.
Subsection (1)(a) is the most pernicious part of the clause. Again, we can go back to the document that the Minister cited as the core definition on which thed¤clause depends. As we know already, that is the Terrorism Act 2000—a personal favourite of mine; I read it often. Section 1, in the introductory part 1, gives the interpretation of terrorism. It seems to me that all the extra stuff in clause 1(1)(a) is otiose if the Minister means what he says; namely, that the definition in clause 1(1)(a) is the same as that in the 2000 Act.
I want to read out the definition of terrorism. We have spent much time talking about it and it is important, if the Minister believes that the courts will read this record, to know what it says. Section 1(1) of the Act states:
“In this Act ‘terrorism’ means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.”
Subsection (2) states:
“Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.”
Subsection (3) states:
“The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.”
I acknowledge the difficulty of grasping the entire meaning of that definition, but on reflection I believe that it will become absolutely obvious that every example cited by the hon. Member for East Antrim falls within that definition of terrorism. It follows from that that the Bill will require every single example cited by the hon. Gentleman to be treated in the context of what it seeks to do in terms of closure.
In simple terms, the assurance that the Minister sought to give us in our earlier sitting that some of the examples put forward in the debate would not be covered by the Bill is plainly not the case. I accept that the Government need to make difficult decisions, but let us not pretend that any of the unpleasant examples  cited in the debate are excluded from the provision giving an opportunity for the perpetrators to receive a licence.
My final point refers to the question of security forces. The more the Minister said, the more convinced I was that the additional words in the clause are not necessary and, further to the point, are extremely injurious. Why is that? If we consider the definition of terrorism that I read into the record, we see that it pretty well covers any act that could reasonably be regarded as a terrorist act. The legislation is about getting closure on the sad terrorist history of Northern Ireland in the past three or four decades. It is not an effort to seek closure on all other criminality that has taken place in Northern Ireland. However, the additional words
“and the affairs of Northern Ireland (whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”
do exactly that. That necessarily goes beyond the definition of terrorism as we have seen it.
When it comes to the forces, the extra part does not help in any way whatsoever towards achieving closure as regards the police and the security services. Why do I say that? Because the definition in the 2000 Act is phrased in such a way that members of the security forces who committed acts as a consequence of the troubles—the unusual situation—can already cite the Act as their justification in terms of this Bill. They do not need to go beyond the existing definition of terrorism. Further, by adding the extra words,
“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”,
we provide exactly the thing that the Minister said that this was not: a get-out-of-jail-free card relating not to acts committed, for example, to advance a political, religious or ideological cause but, necessarily, to acts committed in the name of criminality—things that have nothing to do with the unusual situation in Northern Ireland.
The Minister has had so much trouble today because he cannot square the extra words with the intent that he and his fellow Ministers in Northern Ireland debates claim for them. If we agree to the clause unamended—specifically if we do not agreed to amendment No. 111—we will include common criminality in the legislation; we will go beyond the “political, religious and ideological” causes, which caused offence. I see the Minister shaking his head. I should welcome an intervention from him if could answer this question: if he is willing to provide a way out, a licensing opportunity, for members of the security forces who have acted in a criminal way, but not in the context of the political, religious and ideological environment in which we found ourselves in Northern Ireland, what exactly does he want to give them a licence for? It follows from the comprehensive definition in the 2000 Act—I remember the long debate that we had about it at the time—that anything that is not covered by it is nothing to do with the troubles.
If the Government were serious about limiting the clause to closure in relation to the exceptional and tragic circumstances in which Northern Ireland has found itself for four decades, they would, far from  resisting amendment No. 111, propose it themselves to ensure that criminality did not slip in as an unintended consequence of their good intentions.
The problem is that the Government are not engaged in joined-up thinking about the reams of legislation through which some of us gone through, for hundreds of hours in the past eight and a half years, trying to achieve normality. As a result, they risk creating a Bill that exonerates criminals from the sentences that they deserve in respect of acts that are nothing to do with the troubles. In that case, I can only suggest that the Minister, rather than opposing amendment 111, adopt it as a Government amendment. If he does that, he will certainly have my support.

Laurence Robertson: We have had a long debate about this, but it is important because it defines what kind of offence is covered by the Bill. With all due respect to the Minister—I mean that sincerely—I am not satisfied with his explanation. I have two objections. First, the drafting of clause 1(1)(a) is very poor. It says
“in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland (whether committed for terrorist purposes or not).”
The bit in brackets presumably just relates to the affairs of Northern Ireland, because terrorism cannot be for “terrorist purposes or not”. If it is both terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland, perhaps they should have been dealt with in separate subsections. It does not read correctly as it is.
We heard earlier that the phrase
“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”
does not appear in the Terrorism Act 2000. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, the definition of terrorism in that Act is pretty comprehensive and possibly too wide. When I first spoke on the subject some hours ago, I said that terrorism is defined quite widely in the 2000 Act, and my concern was that the phrase in clause 1(1)(a) makes it much wider, particularly given the extra activities that paramilitary organisations are now undertaking. The parameters are getting wider and I am concerned that the commissioner will be able to issue certificates for a wider range of offences than Parliament intended. That is my second objection.
The Minister spoke of interpretation. I am not a lawyer, but I am aware that there are different rules for interpreting Acts of Parliament, including the mischief rule, the golden rule, and the literal rule. How can we be sure which of those will be adopted by the commissioner? We are talking not about a court but about a commissioner. I have deep concerns about that.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire wondered whether the amendment was consistent with the new clause tabled by the Democratic Unionist party. I think it is, although they focus on slightly separate issues. The amendment would confine the provision to terrorist acts, whereas the new clause raises the separate question of the security forces. I do not see  that the two are contradictory. If the security forces are involved in suppressing terrorism, I see no inconsistency with the amendment.
I do not want to take any more of the Committee’s time. We have had a long debate—necessarily so. I am not convinced by the Minister’s response. Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I do not blame the Minister. I am convinced that he has been let down by the advice that he has received. I do not like to criticise people who cannot answer back, but we have a job to do. I have expressed my feelings and I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, after ‘not),’, insert
‘for which the maximum period of imprisonment is not life,’.
We had a long debate on the previous amendment. Although amendment No. 1 deals with just as big an issue, it is reasonably tight and we should be able to dispose of it quickly. I hope that the Minister’s responses during the previous debate do not indicate that he intends to batten down the hatches for the remainder of our proceedings and simply stonewall, no matter how reasonable the amendments are. That would not get the Committee very far. It would certainly not get the Minister very far in the long run.
The amendment deals with the nature of the offences that should be subject to certification and ultimately to the special tribunal’s decision. It is abundantly clear that in the past decades in Northern Ireland a wide range of offences has been committed by every conceivable terrorist organisation against all sections of our community. In the past, the courts and the Government have recognised that some offences are so appalling that they must be dealt with differently, and the courts are directed by Parliament in terms of the sentence that they give for the offence.
The life sentence is at the very top of the scale of sentences. It recognises that the offence is of the most serious nature. In the Northern Ireland (Sentences)  Act 1998, the Government distinguished between offences that carry a fixed penalty and offences that carry a life sentence. The Act contained a stricter application of the Government’s early release system for those who had been given life sentences. Those who had been given a fixed penalty had to have served at least a third of the sentence to be released immediately; if they had not served a third of their sentence, they had to serve the remainder of a two-year period. For those who had been given a life sentence, the length of that sentence had first to be determined, and the offender had to serve two thirds of it before they could be released early, or serve the remainder of the two-year period. The Government clearly recognised that the nature and the seriousness of the crime required them to distinguish between those who had committed offences for which life sentences had been given.
Life sentences in Northern Ireland have been given for the most horrendous acts—acts to which the Government should never attempt to turn a blind eye or make subject to a political deal. The amendment simply draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that some offences, because of their seriousness, should not be included in the Bill. I hope that it will have the Committee’s support. The Government’s annexe to the joint declaration in 2003 drew attention to the necessity of taking into account the position of the victims of violence. I cannot see how the Government have done that in the Bill. They certainly have not done it by ignoring the impact on the victims of terrorism of giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to those who have been responsible for murder and other offences for which a life sentence can be handed down.
I therefore urge the Committee to recognise that those offences are such that the Committee and the House should never allow those who have been guilty of murder to walk our streets without serving one day in prison. If they set such a precedent, the Government will learn to regret it, as will the House and the country. I urge the Committee at least to reduce the impact of the legislation by reducing the number of those who would benefit from it.

Lorely Burt: The amendment would restrict the types of offence to which the Bill applies to those that do not carry a sentence of life imprisonment. It would mean that anyone wanted in connection with a murder, for example, would not be able to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill, but someone wanted in connection with a membership offence or possession of a weapon would be able to apply for the scheme. That would allow some people to apply while excluding those who had committed the worst terrorism offences in Ireland. Although we have a great deal of sympathy with the view taken by the hon. Member for Belfast, East and with victims for whom that would be at least some comfort, we have to take into account the fact that such an approach would prevent the purpose of the Bill being achieved, which is to draw a line under what has happened in the past and to enable individuals to get on and move forward. Although we have a great deal of sympathy, we will not support the amendment.

Mark Durkan: Taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) about the purpose of the Bill being to draw a line under the past, let me say to all members of the Committee and to the House more broadly that one phrase that victims in Northern Ireland do not want to hear is “drawing a line under the past”. They regard it as one of the most offensive, insensitive phrases that can be used. I know that people use it in a well meaning way and think that it is one of those politically pastoral phrases, but actually it provokes, needles and hurts victims. As far as they are concerned, drawing a line under the past is what the great and the good are asking them to do as they strike out the memory of their loved one; that is how the phrase is interpreted. Those are the emotions, the grief and the grievance that we are trampling all over with this Bill. We all need to recognise that.
I know that during the course of this Bill all of us will say things that bring hurt to the victims. Even these proceedings probably seem to them to be a sick and hollow parody of the sympathy that we all claim to offer. That is a warning to all of us—we are all falling into that trap. I am not singling out the hon. Lady.

Lorely Burt: I would never wish to give offence to any victim. I cannot say that I understand how deeply people feel, because I am fortunate in that I have never had to face the terrible tragic circumstances that have been faced by other Members in this Room. However, perhaps I could mention that this morning I was speaking on Radio Ulster—[Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton: Order. If people are going to wander in and out of the Committee, will they please not travel between the speaker and the person to whom they are addressing a reply?

Lorely Burt: I am very apologetic, Sir. Nicholas.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Lady has no reason to be apologetic. I was giving a modest reprimand to somebody from north of the border.

Lorely Burt: I just apologise to everyone, Sir Nicholas. It usually seems like the best thing to do. [Laughter.]
If we cannot get to a stage where each individual recognises that they can move on, may I ask the hon. Member for Foyle what we as a society can do to help and support them and to move the process forward?

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation, but let us be clear: my party will support amendment No. 1. We approach many aspects of the Bill differently from the DUP and, indeed, from other parties, but we will support the amendment if it mitigates the extent and impact of bad legislation. Many victims of terrorism and actions by the state can come to terms with what they have suffered, be it injury and hurt, loss of earnings or loss of their business. What people cannot come to terms with is the loss of loved ones through murder.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Mark Durkan: As we have already discussed, we are in a difficult situation with the Bill because so many of us disagree with its fundamentals, its very provenance and its thrust. If we cannot test it to destruction through our amendments and arguments, however, we want at least to mitigate its impact, and amendment No. 1 would do that in a way that many people would welcome.
Since the Bill emerged, I have received many representations and questions from many victims and survivors, and the most poignant are from people speaking on behalf of their loved ones. Those people clung to the idea of getting some ration of justice, and many of them voted for the Good Friday agreement, although they struggled to do so, because they were reassured by what both Governments and parties such as mine said at the time. When we were asked directly in public meetings and studio debates whether the agreement meant that nobody would be pursued and that people would be exempt from spending any time in jail or appearing in court, we were very clear that the answer was no. We believed that the agreement meant that people would be pursued in unresolved and outstanding cases, and that they would still have to spend at least two years in jail in cases of murder. It was particularly relatives of murder victims who asked us those questions.
As someone who negotiated the agreement and led one of the parties’ referendum campaigns in favour of it, I was not lying when I gave people those assurances at that time, and I am not going to make a liar of myself now by shrugging my shoulders and failing to support amendment No. 1, which would at least mean that people were still subject to the provisions of the agreement in murder cases. I know that that is small comfort and consolation to many of the victims, but it was sufficient comfort and consolation for some of them to struggle to vote for the agreement, and that is why we would be prepared to support the amendment.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked why the Bill now has a wider scope and why we are no longer dealing with a fixed group of people who can all be identified in terms of on-the-runs. The reality is that the Bill is so much wider precisely because of the cold cases review—the historic inquiries team. It is trying to protect people—not only on the part of the state, but people who might well be personalities in the new political dispensation. In all the circumstances, however, I still say that we have to put victims first; we cannot ignore all the people who are carrying the grief that has been caused by a whole series of murders. There are 2,100 unsolved cases before the historic inquiries team, and they are all for murder. Amendment No. 1 would at least preserve the promise and the prospect of at least some modicum of justice or some measure of truth being pursued, which is what families were offered when the historic inquiries team was set up.
The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), agreed to set up the team and committed money to it to ensure that the police ombudsman’s examination of past cases and investigations could actually go somewhere, and that the ombudsman’s powers were sufficient to deal with all those cases. The historic inquiries team was set up on behalf of all the victims who have been lobbying on outstanding cases.
I pay tribute to the Government for doing that, but in effect, if they reject amendment No. 1 they are subverting the promise that they made. It will not be just the promise and assurance that we gave when we were selling the Good Friday agreement to the public that will be betrayed; the promise, assurance and prospect that were held out to victims when the historic inquiries team was set up will be betrayed, too. If Labour Members want to stand by the good contribution that their party made in bringing about the Good Friday agreement and the good contributions and positive promises made by Ministers when the historic inquiries team was set up, they too will support amendment No. 1.

Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the hon. Member for East Antrim I should say that I have been told by one or two hon. Members that, perhaps because of the importance of the debate, it feels a little warm in here. If hon. Gentlemen would like to remove their jackets, I am reluctantly prepared to say that I shall not reprimand them for doing so.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Member for Foyle has touched to some extent on the main matter that I wanted to deal with this afternoon. I am a member of the Policing Board in Northern Ireland, which receives a regular update from the police about progress on cold cases, and one of the reasons why I consider the clause important is connected with that.
When the Government announced money for the cold cases review there was great expectation among victims. Many lobbied the police to have their cases reopened. That will not be possible in some cases, of course, because much of the evidence has gone. Great expectation was aroused, nevertheless, that there would at least be a serious investigation, and that if new techniques such as those involving low-level DNA happened to produce new evidence, cases would be pursued. Indeed, Sinn Fein has criticised the police this week because they are pursuing leads on, for example, the Claudy bomb.
The police in Northern Ireland are vigorously pursuing cases; they are spending quite a lot of money, and are directing detectives’ resources to the pursuit of cold cases. At the same time, the Bill is fatally undermining the morale of those teams and the outcome of their work. The amendment would at least ensure that detectives would have an incentive to pursue the 2,100 unsolved murder cases to the point where they would be brought to court to be tried, if there were sufficient evidence.
I do not accept the point made by the hon. Member for Solihull—in fact, I found it perturbing and contradictory in the light of earlier comments—that  she would find it difficult to support the amendment because it would defeat the purpose of the Bill, which was, to use her terms, to draw a line under what happened in the past. That seems to contradict what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said about the Liberal party’s stance.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I could have explained what I meant a little better. Although we oppose the Bill as a whole, we are all trying to make constructive comments. We are trying to make this flawed Bill work. That was the context in which I made those comments.

Sammy Wilson: I am glad for that clarification; the Bill is still unacceptable to the hon. Lady’s party. She asked a question of the hon. Member for Foyle: what are the victims in Northern Ireland looking for that would bring closure—I, too, dislike that phrase—or draw a line under the past? Those who have come to me about unsolved murders in their families want to know two things. First, they want to know who did it. Secondly, they want some due process to be applied.
The amendment would achieve both objectives. It would ensure that there was no hole in the net intended to catch those who were engaged in the many hundreds of unsolved murders. If the intention of the hon. Member for Solihull is to find some way of giving comfort to those victims, the only thing to do is to support the amendment. It would at least ensure that those whom the police are currently investigating would be subject to the due process of law. As we said earlier, it would not make the Bill acceptable, but it would make it less unacceptable. For that reason, I trust that it will be supported.

Lembit Öpik: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the Bill is terribly flawed; the dispute is probably a matter of process rather than outcome. I feel that all such matters should be dealt with in court. I understand what he is saying—it is a matter of judgment, not principle, and to some extent it is a moot point. I hope that he will accept the fact that we are arguing about a relatively small but important element. Later, we will seek to modify the Bill so that everything goes through a court. However, I see the point that the hon. Gentleman is making now, and I do not take issue with him on it.

Sammy Wilson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but this is not a relatively small element of the Bill. If the amendment were accepted, it would have a dramatic impact on the number of people and the type of crime covered by the Bill. For that reason, the amendment is very important. This is not a small matter.
I shall make an appeal; the hon. Member for Foyle made the same appeal in the Chamber on Second Reading. Some Members on the Government side of the Committee have indicated that they have a bottom line on this matter. It has been said that those who are guilty of murder should at least see the inside of a prison; they should serve a prison sentence of some sort, no matter for how long. The amendment would  at least help to achieve that, because those guilty of the most horrendous crimes would have to go through the due process. They would have to take their chance in court, and would have to serve at least some time in prison. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee.

David Anderson: We can all agree on one thing—that we are starting from a difficult point. However, we are divided on the need to be here, because we do not accept that we are all pulling in the same direction. Unfortunately, we have a job to carry out on behalf of Parliament.
I agree very much with the hon. Member for Belfast, East about victims, but I want to talk about the exiles, too. Victims and exiles are both being left out of the debate. I hope that the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government will think carefully about their position. The one Government response that I have heard about exiles is that they are effectively the IRA’s responsibility. That is not good enough. Over the next few weeks, we must make strong representations about the rights of people who have been badly treated.
The Belfast agreement does not say that we must draw a line under events, it says,
“We must never forget those who have died or been injured or their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.”
That is our remit here today—we are trying to move forward from a very serious situation. The hon. Member for Foyle was right. There are at least 2,100 unsolved murders, but the historic inquiries team recognises that there could be at least 3,269 troubles-related deaths. If we accept the amendment, we will create a process that will never reach an end; we will never carry out the remit that we accepted under the Belfast agreement.
The hon. Member for Foyle said that he wanted to test the Bill to destruction. If we accept the amendment, we will do just that. We will destroy the aims of the Bill. Therefore, we should reject it.

Laurence Robertson: I rise to support the amendment. I, too, consider it to be very important, because the seriousness of the offences that we are talking about causes the greatest degree of offence. The knowledge that people who are accused will not have to appear before a court—indeed there will not be a court—is very offensive, but the approach to the seriousness of their offences is among the most offensive parts of the Bill. I support the amendment, because if it were accepted it would to some extent reduce the level of offence and hurt caused by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Solihull put her case very reasonably. She might want to rephrase her term “draw a line”, but she was talking about what the Secretary of State referred to as the endgame, or closure. I, too, want reconciliation. On Second Reading, I mentioned my participation in a parliamentary visit to Rwanda, which suffered the most terrible genocide in 1994 when 850,000 people  were massacred. I and other hon. Members literally walked through the skulls and bones of the victims—a harrowing experience, as the Committee will imagine. Then we went to the courts that had been set up especially to bring about justice. The point of the analogy is that the Justice Minister said to me, “This is the first step towards reconciliation. Without justice, we cannot have reconciliation.” Many people in Northern Ireland will not be able to be reconciled if they see so many people who have committed the most terrible offences going free without even having to appear in a court—without there even being a court.
I do not want the Committee to take this the wrong way, but the fact that so many of the people to whom we are referring are from one side of the divide—the republican side—makes matters worse; it makes reconciliation more difficult. Let me repeat clearly what I have said in the House: I totally condemn violence on both sides. I have condemned certain members of the Orange Order who apparently took part in the violence last summer. However, it is not helpful that most of those who will benefit from the legislation—albeit it is available people from both sides—are from one side.
There has to be justice before there can be reconciliation. Those who have committed the most awful crimes should not benefit from the process, and I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.

David Hanson: I fully understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Belfast, East in tabling the amendment. The Government had to reach a difficult decision on the Bill and we considered it long and hard. Even though I disagree with the amendment, I cannot diminish the seriousness of the crimes and terrorist activities that have occurred. They may still be under investigation by the historic inquiries team and lead to significant charges: the potential remains for charges to be made in respect of serious offences which could incur a sentence life imprisonment for those who committed them.
I cannot speak about the issue in the same way as hon. Members who represent the Northern Ireland constituencies, because they live with it on a daily basis and have done so throughout their time in Parliament. During my time as Minister, however, I have met people whose relatives have been murdered, whose husbands have been killed in cold blood, whose children have been blown up in cold blood and who now face the Bill both with dignity and with pride at their families’ achievements, and with anger at what the Government have introduced. I appreciate that and the difficulty that it brings, but I am introducing the Bill on behalf of the Government and with the support of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister because we want to ensure that we bring not closure—I say with due respect to the hon. Member for Solihull that we can never have closure on the loss of a relative who has been murdered in cold blood—but an end to the potential for future victims of violence.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I appreciate his sensitive approach to the situation, but I am afraid that the Secretary of State has used the words “closure” and “endgame” on very many occasions.

David Hanson: Everybody in Committee and in the House knows that the Bill is difficult and unpalatable and that it brings great stress not only to victims, but to all those involved in introducing it because it has involved a difficult and painful decision. However, we made that decision on its effect in respect of sentences that bring life imprisonment for a purpose, which is to effect an end to the violence that led to 302 police officers being killed before 10 April 1998.

Tobias Ellwood: I lost a close relative to terrorism. Everybody has been speaking passionately about closure, but it is hard to agree on what that is. Does the Minister accept that we are actually looking for justice? The Bill does not provide the justice that the families seek, but the amendment goes some way to effecting it.

David Hanson: Later in our consideration of the Bill, we will discuss the procedure under which cases will—if clause 1 remains as it is—come before the special tribunal and people will be charged with and convicted of committing horrendous crimes against the community and specific individuals. The justice will come. Under the proposals, individuals who have not been convicted of any crime in Northern Ireland will potentially be convicted. They will face justice in the courts; they will face a criminal sentence and a release on licence under conditions that we will discuss later. I cannot escape the fact that individuals who are convicted will be released on licence, because that is the nature of the scheme that I am bringing before thed¤Committee and the House on behalf of the Government. However, justice will come for those whose relatives have been murdered, but who have not yet seen an individual convicted for that crime. Under the scheme, those responsible will be convicted, sentenced to life imprisonment and, yes, released on licence.

Mark Durkan: The Minister has made a very sweeping statement that people who have not been convicted will be convicted under the scheme. The fact is that the Bill is concocted in such way that it will be very difficult to secure convictions. People will not be brought before a court in the ordinary sense as the Minister implied; they will be brought before a pseudo court and they will have the privileges and protections of the measures to prevent investigation that the Bill provides, so that no significant evidence may be provided against them. Furthermore, many relatives of victims may never hear the names of the people who are supposedly being convicted, because the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to be able to suppress information such as names and details of offences. In such cases, no truth can come out and no satisfaction whatever can be gained. It is important  that the Minister stop insulting Members of this House and, more importantly, that he stop insulting victims by this pretence.

David Hanson: I am genuinely sorry that my hon. Friend has taken that attitude. These are difficult decisions which the Government, the Secretary of State and I considered for some time with, I hope, some sensitivity to the needs of victims of the crimes covered by the legislation. Individuals will be brought before the special tribunal if it is possible to secure a conviction. If they are convicted, they will be given a sentence—a sentence that, yes, will involve release on licence if the Bill is passed in its present form. However, our aim is to prevent future victims in Northern Ireland and to ensure that we do what we can to bring a form of closure—a word that we have used in several ways—and political stability.

Mark Durkan: Is the Minister saying that someone is threatening to create victims if the legislation is not passed?

David Hanson: I am saying that we are a long way from where we were on 10 April 1998. We are a long way forward in that process. The Bill, however unpalatable and difficult it is to bring it before the Committee, is one of the building blocks that have brought us to the present point in the process. I bring it before the Committee not as a matter of pleasure and joy, but as a matter of necessity to ensure that we continue to build on the peace process.

Mark Hendrick: No one on either side of the Committee takes joy in the legislation. One hon. Member referred to part of the legislation as a sweetener, which I did not feel was appropriate. Does the Minister agree that if this provision to deal with on-the-runs, who were always going to be an outstanding issue, had been in the original agreement, the agreement would never have happened and would never have been accepted in the referendum? How many people would have lost their lives if the agreement had not been signed—how many victims would we be talking about today?

David Hanson: Again, I point to the fact that 302 police officers were killed before the Good Friday agreement, whereas since the agreement no police officers have been killed as a result of terrorist activity. That is progress to which all parties in this House have contributed, and they should be proud of it.
I am conscious of the fact that there will shortly be a Division in the House. I can try to complete my remarks on the clause before it, or I can hold on and complete my remarks after it. I am happy to take interventions, but if hon. Members want to complete our consideration of the clause now, I shall make progress if I can.
Lady Hermonrose—

David Hanson: Obviously hon. Members do not want to make progress, so I give way.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Minister is absolutely correct that no police officers have been murdered since the Belfast agreement was signed. Will he also put on the record the fact that the widows and families of murdered RUC officers are not at all pleased that the Government have introduced the Bill?

David Hanson: I have met with the RUC widows, and I shall answer the points that have been made following the Division.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

David Hanson: In response to the points that the hon. Member for North Down made, I understand fully the opposition of the RUC George Cross Widows Association and the RUC George Cross Parents Association, and others whom I met several weeks ago in Stormont to discuss this difficult Bill. However, as I have had to explain to those I met, I must still propose the measure that has been introduced. The legislation and the revisiting of those atrocities are difficult for them, but I have had to do that. We think that it is the right thing to do. There is an honest disagreement about that, but I tell the hon. Lady that I fully understand the concerns and during the passage of the Bill, here and in another place, we will reflect on the points put to me by the RUC George Cross Widows Association and others.
I move on to the questions about the historic inquiries team, a point raised by a number of Members including the hon. Members for East Antrim and for Foyle. The allegation, essentially, is that the legislation undermines the attempts by the Police Service of Northern Ireland to completely reinvestigate old cases and old murders. Whatever the outcome if the Bill passes through both Houses in the form in which it is drafted, the historic inquiries team is, in my view and that of the Government, an important part of investigating what happened in a range of murders and cases.
We need to investigate such cases for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member for East Antrim, so that we know, if we can find out, who did it and why, and so that we can hold those individuals to account for their crimes. Certainly, we could put them through the scheme for the tribunal and potentially get a conviction if they are found guilty, and, although I understand the difficulties, release them on licence as individuals are released under the pre-10 April 1998 Good Friday agreement early release scheme.
The importance of the historic inquiries team is that there are still many unsolved murders in Northern Ireland. There is still potential, difficult though it is, to secure convictions with forensic evidence, historical evidence and accounts of what happened in the past. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, when Secretary of State, established the historic inquiries team, knowing at the time that the  Bill would come forward if the IRA proceeded with acts of completion in disarmament following the announcement on 28 July. Although the potential outcome of the inquiries carried out by the team may still be that individuals are convicted and released on licence, it is still a valuable part of achieving not the closure that we have talked about but a sense of justice through a conviction, so that people know who committed a crime and, potentially, what happened to a missing relative as a result.

Huw Irranca-Davies: What my hon. Friend has said has added a note of clarity to the issue, although there is disagreement on the principle underlying the amendment. Investigations, whether from the historic inquiries team or elsewhere, can continue to be carried out because they can feed into the system. What is deliberated today, in the next few sittings and when the Bill goes to the other place, will not stop such inquiries in their tracks. Is that what my hon. Friend is saying?

David Hanson: There is no Government intention to stop the historic inquiries team taking cases forward.

Jeremy Hunt: I am grateful for the reasonable tone adopted by the Minister. I am concerned that the work of the historic inquiries team will be rendered ineffective if the only leverage that the Government or the law might have over people who have potentially committed such criminal acts is removed by the fact that they have already been granted a certificate which removes them from any risk of prosecution. I would contrast the structure of a separate historic inquiries team and a system of offering certificates with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. That attempt to seek justice for victims and find out the truth of what happened was an integral part of people being let off their crimes.

David Hanson: I hope that I can assist the hon. Gentleman to at least some extent. Following the investigation by the historic inquiries team, individuals will qualify for the scheme only at the point at which an investigation is over and a person is charged. Again, the purpose of the historic inquiries team—although I know many hon. Members find the question of early release and release on licence unpalatable—means that those inquiries will continue, individuals may well be investigated and there may well be cases in which a charge is made. At the point of charge an individual could apply for a certificate. He will then go through the system and his case will be heard in court. If found guilty he will be convicted and released on licence.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister has accepted that the outcome of the historic inquiry will be that people will not face a sentence, as in going to jail, but will simply get a licence. Does he also accept that the work of the historic inquiries team will be hampered by clause 7 because as soon as an individual is alerted that the police are interested in his case he can apply for a certificate? At that stage the police have neither the  power of arrest, detention, entry or search, remand in custody or bail nor even the power to take fingerprints or samples. The Bill hinders the historic inquiries team once a person is alerted to the fact that it is on to him.

David Hanson: I do not think that it will. We will return to that matter in detail on clause 7. Those who are in the jurisdiction can apply for the scheme only when they face that charge. The historic inquiries team will examine the details. If it can bring charges it will do so. If those charges are brought the individual can apply for the certification. He will then go through the system and face potential conviction. If he is convicted he will be released on licence, which we will come on to in later clauses.
We are diverting slightly from the original amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. Excluding the most serious offences in the Bill would prevent us from addressing, as we seek to do, some of the central and difficult issues of serious crimes committed before 10 April 1998, the date of the Good Friday agreement. The Bill is designed to ensure that those individuals can qualify for the scheme, but only relating to crimes committed before that date.
Distasteful though it is to many members of the Committee and distasteful though it may be to people like myself who never imagined that we would ever introduce such a measure, the Bill will ensure that serious offences, including those that, sadly, carry tariffs of life imprisonment, can be considered in the same way as offences under the early release scheme. I know that the hon. Member for Belfast, East nobly opposed that scheme at the time, but individuals are now released from prison, having had life sentences before 10 April 1998 and are now citizens in Northern Ireland on licence for those crimes. The Government have had to make difficult decisions, but we believe that we must not create further anomalies whereby individuals are treated differently, depending on whether they qualify for this scheme or whether they have already had a sentence under the early release scheme.
I should like to finish on a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), relating to exiles. If he looks at the statement made in April 2003 at Hillsborough on the potential for the scheme, he will see that the Government included thed¤question of exiles in the first paragraph. The Government clearly wanted to ensure that the question of exiles would be addressed at the time of an act of completion of the disarmament of the IRA. The Government have always said that exiling must end. We utterly condemn the process of exiling by groups on either side of the community aimed at intimidating people into leaving Northern Ireland.
Police investigations into such offences are often hampered, but we must send out a strong message that as part of this process we will be firm on the question of exiling. We will take steps to do whatever we can to ensure that that unacceptable practice does not continue. If he refers to the original document, my hon. Friend will see that that is a key part of the policy stated and published in April 2003.

David Anderson: I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister says, but the brief that was sent to members of the Labour party from the parliamentary Labour party says:
“But it is the paramilitary organisations that have to send the signal that it is safe for the ‘exiles’ to return.”
Is there any sign of them doing that?

David Hanson: As a Government, we believe that the practice of exiling is incompatible with the statement made on 28 July. We will have to monitor the progress on that situation as part of the work of the Independent Monitoring Commission. The legislation will come into effect in two years’ time and we must ensure that the situation with regard to exiles is addressed, so that individuals can return to Northern Ireland or to the cities in which they want to live and work. The Government will not tolerate the process of exiling. It is a difficult issue, but we have to put down markers that say that it is not acceptable to us.

Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister explain exactly how he and the Government intend to ensure that any commitment on exiles is kept? Would the legislation not be implemented if the commitment were not kept, or would the Minister be looking for the same kind of promise as was made on decommissioning under the Belfast agreement? The promise was made that decommissioning would occur by 2000, which of course never happened, and no sanction was imposed to ensure that it did happen.

Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I think that the subject is important, but I recall that amendments on the same issue will come up in a future sitting. I will be guided by you, Sir Nicholas, but I think that it would be more sensible to discuss those issues all in one go.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The matters that have been touched on can be debated later on. However, the intervention was legitimate and, if the Minister wishes to respond, I am happy that he should do so.

David Hanson: Those matters will be discussed in the fullness of time, and there has already been a great deal of discussion of exiling. However, I say again to the hon. Member for East Antrim and to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon that the Government believe that exiling is incompatible with the statement made by the IRA on 28 July, and we will carefully monitor the progress on exiling during the passage of the legislation and beyond. We want to send out a clear signal that exiling is not acceptable. We can debate the matter in more detail later, and I am happy to do so, because I am conscious of the lack of time in this sitting of the Committee.
I simply say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East that I understand his amendments, and I recognise the passion and the feeling with which he has tabled them but, for the reasons that I have outlined, I am unable to accept them.

Peter Robinson: During the discussion of amendment No. 1 most members of the Committee have recognised that there are victims who have been greatly hurt by events in the past. It has been suggested by some in the Committee that by allowing all the terrible things in this legislation to happen we will somehow be able to draw a line under it all, that there will be closure, and that we will all be able to move on to the next stage. But for whom are we seeking to get closure? Terrorists are the only group that will get closure and a line drawn under past events by this Bill. It will not draw a line under the past as far as victims are concerned; indeed, it will increase the agony that they have to suffer. As was indicated in an earlier intervention, what the victims require is justice and truth. The Bill provides them with neither.

Lorely Burt: It seems to us that there is not a great deal of dispute between our two positions, in that all Opposition Members seek justice for everyone and want all individuals who should be tried, to be tried through a proper court procedure. That being the case, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and I are minded to reserve judgment.

Peter Robinson: I was not particularly talking about remarks by the hon. Lady; there have been such remarks by several members of the Committee. A difficulty for the hon. Lady and other Committee members in considering a group of amendments is that they know they have tabled amendments that might change the Bill in another direction. We are sometimes inclined to protect our own turf and amendments at the expense of others.
I accept what the hon. Lady says, as I accept what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said in an intervention. He made remarks that I might have jumped on fairly fast in other circumstances, suggesting that what we were dealing with was a relatively small element of the Bill. I do not think so. It is a critical issue for the Bill—the determination of the kind of offence on which it is suitable for a Government to do a deal with a terrorist organisation, to silence its guns. That is what the Minister is telling us. He tells us that the terrorists are holding a threat over the community and that the only way he can stop them is by paying this price.
I do not think that the Minister actually believes that that is suitable. I think that he is very uncomfortable with the Bill. What he has really been saying to the House is, “Look, the music stopped and I was holding the parcel. It was really other people who started it off. Don’t blame me. I am reasonable and must just deal with something that has been placed in front of me.” However, whatever the circumstances, there are people out there who will not understand the Government’s position. They will say that it gives them no closure and that the only way to reduce the impact of the Bill is to reduce the range of people who can benefit from it. I honestly believe that the Committee needs to consider such a reduction, which the amendment would provide for.
The Minister seems to think that justice would be brought about by the fact that a criminal record would result from the proceedings in question. I say this respectfully to him: he is applying an English mind to Irish republicanism, and it does not work.

David Hanson: I am from Wales.

Peter Robinson: I am not sure that that makes it any better.
To Irish republicans a criminal record is never seen as a great disadvantage. It will be a badge of honour in their community that they have been convicted of a terrorist offence. It will be an even greater badge of honour that they were convicted of a terrorist offence and got away with it, without serving a day in prison. It is a massive injustice to the families of those who suffered so much because of the offences that were committed.
In effect, the choice—if that were permitted to victims—would be between an offender being convicted but not serving a day in prison and an offender being on the run, with the risk of being apprehended, convicted and properly sentenced. I guarantee hon. Members that if the victims of terrorism were asked about it, they would rather have the second option than the one that the Minister is opting for. I trust that the Committee will support the amendment.
The hon. Member for Blaydon began well in his intervention—on which I shall merely touch, as we can return to the issue later—but he lost his way and departed from the true path. He rightly said that there were two critical elements: the consideration of the victims and the position of exiles. The Minister, surprisingly, drew attention in his remarks to the first paragraph of the April 2003 proposals in relation to on-the-runs, which specifically states that the Government would, in addressing the issue, show
“sensitivity to the position of victims.”
It continues:
“A related issue would be the complete ending of exiling and allowing those exiled to return.”
The Minister commented that the issue had to be dealt with, that the Government would monitor the position, and that there had to be some certainty in relation to it. There is only one place where one can put certainty when dealing with a Bill—in the Bill itself, which the Minister has failed to do, in the same way that the Government failed to do when the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was introduced and they attempted to link the issue of decommissioning to it.
The Government are going to make the same mistake, and a year or two down the road they will suddenly realise that they have let the terrorists off once again. What will happen? The Government will pay a further price, and make further concessions in order to sort out the problem of exiling. The Minister will not be able to run away from these proceedings  without addressing the issue of exiling. Before you call me up, Sir Nicholas—we can deal with that matter later—I add that I trust that hon. Members will support the amendment, which I regard as being critical to limiting the scope of the Bill and those to whom it will apply.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 15.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 12.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Coaker.]

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Sevend¤o’clock till Thursday 8 December at Nine o’clock.